Editing Social capital (section)

=== In political institutions ===
Social capital (in the institutional [[Robert Putnam]] sense) may also lead to bad outcomes if the [[Political system|political institution]] and [[democracy]] in a specific country is not strong enough and is therefore overpowered by the social capital groups. "Civil society and the collapse of the [[Weimar Republic]]" suggests that "it was weak political institutionalization rather than a weak civil society that was Germany's main problem during the [[Wilhelminism|Wihelmine]] and Weimar eras."<ref>[[Sheri Berman]],''World Politics'' 49, 3, April 1997)</ref> Because the political institutions were so weak people looked to other outlets. "Germans threw themselves into their clubs, voluntary associations, and professional organizations out of frustration with the failures of the national government and political parties, thereby helping to undermine the Weimar Republic and facilitate [[Adolf Hitler's rise to power|Hitler's rise to power]]." In this article about the fall of the [[Weimar Republic]], the author makes the claim that Hitler rose to power so quickly because he was able to mobilize the groups towards one common goal. Even though German society was, at the time, a "joining" society these groups were fragmented and their members did not use the skills they learned in their club associations to better their society, but to encourage their values across all cultures to provide a better society for people. They were very introverted in the Weimar Republic. Hitler was able to capitalize on this by uniting these highly bonded groups under the common cause of bringing Germany to the top of world politics. The former world order had been destroyed during [[World War I]], and Hitler believed that Germany had the right and the will to become a dominant global power.

Additionally, in his essay "A Criticism of Putnam's Theory of Social Capital",<ref>{{cite web|last=Shindler|first=Michael|title=A Criticism of Putnam's Theory of Social Capital|url=http://theapollonianrevolt.com/analysis-social-capital-approach/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419030009/http://theapollonianrevolt.com/analysis-social-capital-approach/|archive-date=19 April 2015|access-date=6 April 2015}}</ref> Michael Shindler expands upon Berman's argument that Weimar social clubs and similar associations in countries that did not develop democracy, were organized in such a way that they fostered a "we" instead of an "I" mentality among their members, by arguing that groups which possess cultures that stress solidarity over individuality, even ones that are "horizontally" structured and which were also common to pre-[[Soviet]] [[Eastern Europe]], will not engender democracy if they are politically aligned with non-democratic ideologies.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Shindler|first1=Michael|title=A Criticism of Putnam's Theory of Social Capital|url=http://theapollonianrevolt.com/analysis-social-capital-approach/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419030009/http://theapollonianrevolt.com/analysis-social-capital-approach/|archive-date=19 April 2015|access-date=6 April 2015|website=The Apollonian Revolt}}</ref>